Category: News Feeds

Biglaw
bonus
announcement
should
be
unambiguously
good
news.
Extra
cash
for
a
job
well
done.
What’s
not
to
like?
Well,
the
powers
that
be
at
Wilson
Sonsini
Goodrich
&
Rosati
announced
bonuses
today
but
the
murmuring
we
are
hearing
here
at
Above
the
Law
is
less-than
great.

First,
here’s
the
bonus
schedule
announced
at
WSGR:

While
the
table
looks
pretty
standard,
it’s
the
fine
print
that’s
pissing
off
associates.
Multiple
tipsters
have
reported
that
the
firm
shifted
the
hours
requirement
to
get
special
bonuses,
and
pushed
back
the
standard
disbursal
period
for
those
specials
by
two
months.

FYI,
WSGR
announced
bonuses
this
afternoon.
Increased
hours
requirement
for
the
special
bonus
(2000
vs
1950)
without
any
warning.
Feels
very
much
like
they
moved
the
goalposts
at
the
last
minute
for
people
who
were
otherwise
locked
in
for
the
bonus,
which
has
been
the
same
hours
requirement
forever.
Also,
they
are
paying
bonuses
2
months
later
than
usual
(March
31
vs
February
1).
People
are
quite
annoyed.
Peer
firms
don’t
have
the
same
requirements.

Another
insider
noted
similar
problems
with
this
year’s
bonus
announcement:

WSGR
matched
but
the
special
bonus
is
at
2,000
hours
but
was
not
announced
until
after
year
end.
Many
associates
were
within
20-30
hours
of
the
extended
cap
and
are
less
than
over
the
moon

Insiders
seem
pretty
pissed
about
the
fiasco.

Hi
all,
I’m
a
Wilson
Sonsini
associate
and
they
just
announced
bonuses.
Ignoring
the
Hogan
Lovells
fiasco,
they
decided
to
make
the
special
bonus
threshold
2,000
hours
instead
of
the
usual
1,950.
Associates
are
beyond
pissed
and
really
outraged
that
they
would
move
the
goalposts
after
the
fiscal
year
has
ENDED

More
reactions:

WSGR
matched
with
the
special
bonus
only
provided
to
those
hitting
2,000
rather
than
the
firm’s
long-standing
1,950.
This
was
not
pre-announced,
so
there
are
obviously
apoplectic
associates
just
a
few
hours
off.

You
can
read
the
full
memo
on

the
next
page.

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
important
bonus
updates,
so
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.
Thanks
for
all
of
your
help!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

---

---

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

What’s
happening
in
corporate
America
bolsters
what
the
leader
of
a
firm
wants
to
happen
in
their
firm.
Sometimes
they’ll
use
that
to
their
advantage.

It
doesn’t
necessarily
show
up
in
the
policy
manual
because
it
didn’t
historically.
The
same
way
cultural
expectations
aren’t
always
black
letter
law
in
a
firm’s
policy
guide,
there’s
an
understanding
of
what’s
expected.

—
Kent
Zimmermann,
a
law
firm
strategy
consultant
with
the
Zeughauser
Group,
in
comments
given
to
the

American
Lawyer,
on
law
firm
attendance
expectations
going
forward
in
2025.
Although
Zimmerman
said
that
most
firms
would
be
unlikely
to
follow
their
clients’
policies,
the
possibility
for
stricter
attendance
requirements
reminiscent
of
pre-pandemic
norms
could
also
arise.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Rudy
Giuliani

spent
the
afternoon
trying
to
convince
Judge
Beryl
Howell
in
DC
not
to
hold
him
in
contempt
for
continuing
to
defame
the
Atlanta
poll
workers
to
whom
he
owes
$148
million.
His
theory
is
that
he
was

not
referring
to
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss
on
November
19
when
he

said
on
his
podcast:

You
know
the
tapes
in
at
the
Arena…at
the
State
Arena
in
Atlanta…uh
they
threw
out
all
the
people
that
were
observing
the
vote
count,
uh
closed
the
doors.
All
of
a
sudden
um
these
two
ladies
and
several
others
shoo
everybody
out.
Everybody’s
gone.
Close
down
the
Arena.…They
make
one
more
casing
of
the
joint,
now
this
is
not
on
the
tape
anymore,
used
to
be,
casing
of
the
joint
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
they
have
a
covered
over
table
that
uh
hadn’t
been
used
all
day
to
take
any
ballots
out
and
when
nobody
was
around
they
pull
up,
pull
up
the
and
they
take
five
bins
out
and
turn
them
over
to
the
people
counting
and
you
can
see
them
quadruple
counting.

It
seems
to
be
going

great.

Rudy
has
thoughts.
And
he
appears
to
be
sharing
them
from
the
courtroom.

This
is
not
to
be
confused
with
the
collection
action
in
New
York,
where
he
was

found
in
contempt
of
Judge
Lewis
Liman’s
turnover
order
and
for
failing
to
comply
with
discovery.

And
yet
America’s
decrepit
Mayor
is
still
inventing
new
ways
to
piss
off
the
court.
This
time,
he
registered
his
Florida
homestead
claim
with
the
Palm
Beach
County
Clerk
and
Comptroller,
in
direct
contravention
of
the
court’s
order.

On
January
16,
the
issue
of
Rudy’s
disputed
Florida
homestead
claim
is
set
for
trial
in
Judge
Liman’s
courtroom.
He
says
he
lives
there,
and
is
thus
entitled
to
take
advantage
of
the
state’s
unlimited
homestead
allowance,
despite
attesting
to
US
Bankruptcy
Judge
Sean
Lane
this
summer
that
he
lived
in
New
York.

On
October
31,
Judge
Liman
issued
an

order
barring
Rudy
from
encumbering
the
Palm
Beach
condo.
And
yet,
on
December
30,
the
former
head
of
SDNY
wandered
into
the
Palm
Beach
County
Clerk’s
office
and
filed
an

affidavit
attesting
that
Freeman
and
Moss’s
registered
judgment
“does
not
constitute
a
valid
lien
on
the
described
property.”

The
plaintiffs
now
have
45
days
to
institute
a
local
civil
action
in
Palm
Beach
County
Court
seeking
a
declaratory
judgment
that
the
homestead
affidavit
is
false
and
to
record
a
lis
pendens
with
the
county
registrar.
They
are
—
unsurprisingly!
—
apoplectic.

In
a
letter
to
Judge
Liman,
plaintiffs’
Willkie
Farr
counsel,
Aaron
Nathan,
noted
that
the
homestead
affirmation
doesn’t
even
conform
to
the
state
law
it
was
filed
under:

The
Notice
purports
to
invoke
Mr.
Giuliani’s
rights
under
Fla.
Stat.
§
222.01(2),
which
provides
that
“a
person
who
is
entitled
to
the
benefit
of
the
provisions
of
the
State
Constitution
exempting
real
property
as
homestead
and
who
has
a
contract
to
sell
or
a
commitment
from
a
lender
for
a
mortgage
on
the
homestead
may
file
a
notice
of
homestead
in
the
public
records
of
the
county
in
which
the
homestead
property
is
located.”

Clearly,
Rudy
has
no
intention
of
selling
this
property,
since
the
proceeds
would
be
immediately
confiscated
by
Freeman
and
Moss,
so
it’s
pretty
ballsy
that
he
used
this
particular
statute
to
throw
up
yet
another
roadblock.
But
ballsy
—
or
perhaps
FUCKING
NUTS
—
has
been
his
litigation
strategy
thus
far.

It’s
unclear
whether
Rudy’s

bada-bing
divorce
lawyer
Joe
Cammarata
was
aware
of
his
Florida
shenanigans.
Cammarata
was
already
in
dutch
with
Judge
Liman,
most
recently
for
refusing
to
meet
and
confer
on
a
joint
pretrial
order,
then
emailing
chambers
ex
parte
what
he
claimed
were
joint
pretrial
orders,
replete
with
referrences
to
exhibits
which
were
not
attached.

Judge
Liman
was hella
impressed:

The
Court
cannot
go
to
trial
with
two
competing
joint
pretrial
orders,
and
it
is
not
required
to
go
to
the
effort
of
reconciling
the
competing
submissions.
Before
9:30
p.m.
tonight,
Defendant
is
ordered
to
serve
Plaintiffs
and
Intervenor,
by
email
to
all
counsel
appearing
for
Plaintiffs
and
Intervenor,
his
proposed
exhibit
list
in
each
of
these
matters,
as
well
as
any
edits
to
the
joint
pretrial
orders
submitted
by
Plaintiffs.
Failure
to
do
so
will
result
in
waiver
of
the
right
to
submit
exhibits
not
otherwise
included
in
the
filed
joint
pretrial
orders.
Defendant’s
counsel
is
also
ordered
to
meet
and
confer
with
Plaintiffs’
counsel
tomorrow
morning
at
a
time
before
11:30
a.m.
selected
by
Plaintiffs’
counsel
(which
Plaintiffs’
counsel
should
provide
by
9:30
pm
tonight).
Plaintiffs
shall
file
revised
joint
pretrial
orders
on
the
dockets
of
each
of
these
cases
by
2
p.m.
tomorrow.
No
other
pretrial
submissions
will
be
received
by
the
Court
(except
for
the
response
to
Plaintiffs’
motions
in
limine),
the
time
period
for
any
other
such
submissions
having
expired.

And
meanwhile,
back
in
DC,
it
appears
to
be
going
swimmingly.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[DC
Docket
via
Court
Listener

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[New
York
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Arkansas
Supreme
Court
chief
justice
rejects
colleagues’
orders,
citing
constitutional
authority;
Chief
Justice
Karen
Baker
also
denounces
an
employment
agreement
between
five
justices
and
a
judicial
employee
she
attempted
to
fire
last
week”: Tess
Vrbin
of
Arkansas
Advocate
has this
report,
along
with
an
article
headlined
“Arkansas
Supreme
Court
chief
justice
digs
up
predecessor’s
2017
memo
in
dispute
with
colleagues;
Majority
of
justices
have
voided
some
of
Baker’s
actions
since
she
took
office
last
week;
former
chief
justice
Kemp
opposed
this,
but
his
statement
was
never
filed.”

“TikTok
Case
Before
Supreme
Court
Pits
National
Security
Against
Free
Speech;
The
court,
which
hears
arguments
on
Friday
in
a
challenge
to
a
law
banning
the
app,
has
issued
varying
rulings
when
those
two
interests
clashed”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“Federal
Court
Halts
Hearing
on
Eve
of
Guilty
Plea
by
Accused
9/11
Mastermind;
A
three-judge
appeals
panel
will
decide
whether
the
plea
deal
Khalid
Shaikh
Mohammed
reached
to
avoid
a
death-penalty
trial
remains
valid”: Carol
Rosenberg
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.

“How
the
Supreme
Court’s
TikTok
Ban
Decision
Could
Weaken
Free
Speech
Rights
For
Everyone:
If
the
government
can
shut
down
a
platform
by
uttering
the
magic
words
‘national
security,’
the
First
Amendment
might
as
well
not
exist
when
it
comes
to
online
speech.” G.S.
Hans
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.

“Breyer
Is
Back
Lobbing
Hypotheticals
at
First
Circuit
Return;
Stephen
Breyer
returns
to
robe
after
two
year
hiatus;
Demeanor
consistent
with
Supreme
Court
oral
arguments”: Allie
Reed
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.

“Maine
tourist
town
goes
to
court
to
keep
out
tourists;
The
First
Circuit
can’t
seem
to
decide
if
sightseers
have
a
constitutional
right
to
travel
to
places
where
they’re
unwanted”: Thomas
F.
Harrison
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.

If
the
conversation
is
about
rap
moguls
who
have
exerted
massive
influence
on
the
rap
industry,
Jay-Z
and
Sean
Combs
are
natural
bedfellows.
But
if
we’re
talking
about
the
extensively
planned
and
orchestrated
trafficking
and
abuse
riddled
freakoffs
P
Diddy
is
being
accused
of
leading,
that’s
a
Blueprint
you
want
no
part
in.
Tony
Buzbee,
a
lawyer
who
has
sworn
to
make
Diddy
and
his
associates
face
justice,
has
alleged
that
some
very
big
names
were
involved
with
Diddy’s
machinations
—
one
of
them
being
Sean
Carter.
Mr.
Carter
denied
these
allegations
and
is
trying
to
get
the
suit
dismissed.

The
Guardian
has
coverage:

Jay-Z
filed
a
new
motion
on
Wednesday
seeking
to
dismiss
the
lawsuit
brought
by
a
woman
who
alleges
that
he
and
Sean
“Diddy”
Combs
sexually
assaulted
her
in
2000
when
she
was
13
years
old.

In
the
court
filing,
filed
on
Wednesday,
the
rapper
and
his
lawyers
reference
what
they
claim
are
inconsistencies
in
the
woman’s
account
of
the
events
from
that
night.
They
also
requested
that
the
judge
impose
a
monetary
sanction
on
the
woman’s
lawyer,
Anthony
Buzbee,
claiming
that
he
failed
to
adequately
investigate
the
woman’s
allegations
before
filing
the
suit.

The
monetary
sanction
angle
makes
sense;
Jay-Z’s
position
from
the
start
has
been
that
these
serious
accusations
are

just
an
attempt
to
extort
him
in
broad
daylight.
His
lawyer
had
this
to
say:

“To
sign
a
pleading
accusing
someone
of
such
a
horrific
crime
without
adequately
vetting
the
allegation
–
particularly
when
the
defendant’s
prominence
means
that
the
allegation
will
be
repeated
in
headlines
across
the
world
–
is
deeply
wrong
and
unethical,”
Carter’s
lawyer
states
in
the
filing.

“If
lawyers
do
not
face
consequences
for
such
a
cavalier
effort
to
destroy
another
person’s
reputation
and
inflict
emotional
harm
on
his
loved
ones,
that
tactic
will
proliferate.”

Buzbee
hasn’t
backed
down
and,
given
the
reputational
consequences
a
high-profile
case
could
have
on
Jay-Z’s
career
and
social
standing,
this
doesn’t
seem
like
the
sort
of
thing
you
settle
and
move
on
from.
More
details
will
develop
as
these
accusations
approach
a
trial
date.

Jay-Z
Files
New
Motion
To
Dismiss
Lawsuit
Accusing
Him
Of
Raping
Girl,
13
[The
Guardian]

Earlier:

Jay-Z
Caught
Up
In
Diddy
Freakoff
Fallout

Tracking
Down
Collaborators
Or
Diddy
By
Association?

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Searching
the
docket
in

Epic
Games
v.
Google
is
a
lot
like
using
Google
these
days:
everything
you
want
is
buried
under
Google-sponsored
crap.

At
least
that’s
the
argument
advanced
in
a
new
amicus
brief
from
Court
Accountability
Action,
a
nonpartisan
judicial
anti-corruption
organization,
filed
on
behalf
of
Professor
Paul
Collins
Jr.,
Professor
of
Legal
Studies
and
Political
Science
at
UMass-Amherst.
The
organization
argues
that
many
of
the
amici
cluttering
the
docket
in
the
Ninth
Circuit’s
ongoing
antitrust
case
aren’t
so
much
friends
of
the
court
as
friends
of
Google.

And
paid
for
it.

Yes,
yes,
an
amicus
brief
to
complain
about
amicus
briefs.
But
the
extent
of
Google’s
“Amicus
Machine,”
as
the
brief
dubs
it,
is
really
something.

Additional
amici
have
recently
entered
business
relationships
with
Google
or
received
financial
support
from
Google’s
“Founders
Fund.”
All
told,
of
the
eighteen
merits-stage
amicus
briefs
filed
in
support
of
Google
in
this
appeal,
sixteen
include
amici
with
documented
financial
ties
to
Google.

Wow,
16
out
of
18.
There’s
a
googol-to-one
chance
that’s
a
coincidence.
And
that’s
not
even
the
most
extreme
example
involving

Google.
In
the
recent
Section
230
case
before
the
Supreme
Court,
the
brief
notes
that
the
nonprofit
Tech
Transparency
Project
“found
that
44
parties
that
signed
amicus
briefs
in
support
of
Google’s
position
in
the
Supreme
Court
case
[were]
funded
by
or
linked
to
Google.”

I
find
amicus
briefs
largely
a
waste
of
time.
There
are
exceptions.
If
the
government
takes
the
time
to
file
as
a
friend
of
the
court,
it’s
worth
noting.
And
there’s
a
cottage
industry
for
amicus
briefs
advancing
unhinged
alternative
history
that
real
litigants
are
too
embarrassed
to
touch
but
Alito
and
Thomas
are
happy
to
parrot.
But
generally
speaking,
they’re
fundraising
artifacts
created
to
impress
donors
and
end
up
in
the
judge’s
trash
can.

However,
if
a
party
can
coordinate
with
a
number
of
related
entities,
not
just
to
avoid
duplicative
arguments,
but
to
divvy
up
the
arguments
in
the
case
across
multiple
briefs,
they
can
circumvent
page-limitation
rules
and
craft
the
litigation
equivalent
of
an
Ancient
Aliens
circle
jerk
where
every
crank
points
at
each
other’s
conclusion
and
calls
it
confirmation.
It
also
opens
the
door
to
introducing
assertions
of
fact
that
Google
can
cite
later
“that
were
untested
during
the
adversary
process
below.”
Troublingly,
it’s
a
well-oiled
machine
at
the
highest
levels:

These
repeat
players
share
resources,
recruit
“elite”
counsel,
deploy
“amicus
whisperers”
and
“wranglers,”
and
tailor
factual
and
legal
narratives
for
judges
and
justices.
The
result
is
dockets
filled
with
meticulously
prepared
outside
input,
often
packaged
as
objective
expertise
but
strategically
designed
by
the
litigants
to
influence
outcomes.
This
networked
process
ensures
that
certain
well-funded
viewpoints,
data,
and
policy
arguments
are
presented
in
a
compelling,
rehearsed
chorus.
Though
the
federal
appellate
rules
encourage
coordination
among
litigants
and
their
amici
“to
the
extent
that
it
helps
to
avoid
duplicative
arguments,”
this
highly
orchestrated
influence
apparatus
goes
well
beyond
avoiding
duplication.

And
while
you
can’t
necessarily
control
for
ideological
fellow
travelers,
something
could
be
done
about
folks
with
financial
ties:

Yet
the
current
federal
rules
governing
disclosure
of
amicus
funding
allow
parties
to
evade
disclosure
of
their
financial
connections
to
amici.
Proposed
changes
to
Rule
29
intended
to
address
these
deficiencies
are
pending
before
the
Judicial
Conference
of
the
United
States.

How
do
they
get
around
current
rules
requiring
financial
disclosure?
As
the
brief
explains,
a
party-in-interest
can
donate
to
the
general
operating
fund
of
the
amicus
and
if
the
filing
is
prepared
out
of
those
resources
rather
than
a
direct
payment
for
the
brief,
companies
take
the
position
that
the
rules
don’t
require
disclosure.

That
said,
the
rules
do
require
an
amicus
filing
to
secure
either
consent
from
all
parties
or
leave
of
the
court.
In
this
case,
Epic
asked
these
amici
to
provide
the
level
of
disclosure
contemplated
by
the
proposed
new
rules.
It
was
not
well-received.

The
vast
majority
of
amici
supporting
Google—sixteen
out
of
eighteen
briefs—declined
to
make
these
disclosures
and
instead
sought
leave
of
the
Court.
Several
raised
objections
to
Epic’s
requested
disclosures,
including
on
the
grounds
that
the
disclosures
would
exceed
the
requirements
of
Rule
29,
that
Epic’s
conditions
were
“impossible
to
satisfy,”
and
that
the
amicus
“maintains
the
confidentiality
of
its
membership.”

The
brief
notes
that
Google
doesn’t
even
try
to
hide
the
fact
that
it’s
a
member
of
the
U.S.
Chamber
of
Commerce,
but
that,
when
asked
to
disclose
this
fact
in
this
case,
the
Chamber
refused
saying
that
it
“maintains
the
confidentiality
of
its
membership.”
And
while
there’s
faux
nobility
in
citing
a
constitutional
right
to
make
anonymous
donations,
these
groups
don’t

have
to
intervene
in
their
members’
cases.
The
whole
point
of
an
amicus
is
that
they
aren’t
obligated
to
write
anything
at
all.
They’re
the
answer
to
the
question
no
one
asked.
If
they’re
so
concerned
about
protecting
their
members
from
scrutiny,
maybe
don’t
file
an
amicus
brief.

And
maybe
these
amici
aren’t
just
third-party
contractors
for
Google.
But
that’s
something
the
court
should
be
able
to
evaluate
with
the
benefit
of
complete
transparency.
Though
these
groups
likely
protest
too
much
because
there’s
a
business
model
to
collect
“member”
fees
to
circumvent
reporting
requirements
and
then
hide
the
direct
relationship
behind
“confidentiality.”

There’s
a
sad
irony
in
Google’s
involvement
in
this
practice.
The
search
engine
that
took
over
the
internet
began
its
life
as
the
unfortunately
named
BackRub
and
the
design
philosophy
that
the
best
way
to
get
to
the
truth
is
to
look
backward
at
who’s
hyping
up
the
page.
As
opposed
to
counting
how
many
times
the
website
shoved
key
terms
into
its
copy,
Google
decided
the
value
was
in
scouring
the
backlinks
to
figure
out
where
the
traffic
comes
from.

Google
understood
the
value
of
transparency
at
one
point.

(Amicus
brief
provided
on
the
next
page…)

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

This
morning
Donald
Trump
got
sentenced
to
a
big
old
NOTHING,
and
boy
is
he
mad
about
it.

After
wresting
three
postponements
from
the
court,
including
one
in
September
because
it
would
be
“political
interference”
to
sentence
him
while
people
were
voting,
Trump
immediately
pivoted
and
claimed
it
would
be
“political
interference”
to
sentence
the
president-elect.

His
lawyers
John
Sauer
(the
future
solicitor
general)
and
Todd
Blanche
(the
future
deputy
AG)
made

bizarre
claims
of
“president-elect
privilege”
that
attaches
during
the
transition.

Sitting-President
immunity
extends
into
the
brief
transition
period
during
which
the
President-elect
prepares
to
assume
the
Executive
Power
of
the
United
States,
and
the
courts
thus
lack
authority
to
adjudicate
criminal
claims
against
him.

They
demanded
an
immediate
stay
to
appeal
the
denial
of
their
motion
to
disappear
the
verdict
because
it
was
secured
using
official
acts
evidence.
And
they
spent
the
past
week
racing
from
court
to
court
in
an
effort
to
stop
their
client
from
facing
a
modicum
of
responsibility.

But
they
got
out-maneuvered
by
Justice
Juan
Merchan,
who
made
the
sentencing
so

un-burdensome
that
they
had
functionally
nothing
to
complain
about.
The
promised
punishment
of
unconditional
release,
along
with
a
dispensation
to
appear
virtually,
cut
the
legs
out
from
under
their

claim
that
wasting
even
a
second
of
Trump’s
precious
time
during
the
transition
compromised
national
security.

Sentencing
a
President
during
his
transition
“creates
a
constitutionally
intolerable
risk
of
disruption
to
national
security
and
America’s
vital
interests.”
And
if
anything
is
to
be
taken
from
the
trial
court’s
decision
to
let
President
Trump
appear
virtually
and
its
indication
that
it
will
not
incarcerate
him,
it
is
that
everyone
agrees
there
are
such
risks.
But
letting
the
sentencing
go
forward
sets
the
precedent
that
those
are
permissible
risks.

Trump
filed
emergency
motions
with
the
First
Judicial
Department
and
the
New
York
Court
of
Appeals,
before
finally
belly
flopping
onto
the
steps
at
One
First
Street
demanding
that
his
pals
bail
him
out.
But
just
this
once,
the
answer
was

“no”
…
barely.

The
application
for
stay
presented
to
Justice
Sotomayor
and
by
her
referred
to
the
Court
is
denied
for, inter
alia,
the
following
reasons.
First,
the
alleged
evidentiary
violations
at
President-Elect
Trump’s
state-court
trial
can
be
addressed
in
the
ordinary
course
on
appeal.
Second,
the
burden
that
sentencing
will
impose
on
the
President-Elect’s
responsibilities
is
relatively
insubstantial
in
light
of
the
trial
court’s
stated
intent
to
impose
a
sentence
of
“unconditional
discharge”
after
a
brief
virtual
hearing.
Justice
Thomas,
Justice
Alito,
Justice
Gorsuch,
and
Justice
Kavanaugh
would
grant
the
application.

(Did
Justice
Kavanaugh
also
get
some

personal
attention
from
the
president-elect,
or
was
that
just
Alito?)

And
so
the
once
and
future
president
whined
and
sighed
his
way
through
the
sentencing
hearing
this
morning,
complaining
that
all
the
legal
scholars
at
Fox
know
the
charges
were
bullshit,
and
no
one
had
ever
been
treated
as
badly
as
him.
WITCH
HUNT!

And
then
the
once
and
future
President
Crimetime
loped
off
to
take
comfort
in
all
the
Republican
governors
who
trooped
down
to
Mar-a-Lago
to

kiss
his
ring.

Over
the
course
of
2024,
the
U.S.
law
firm
merger
landscape
showed
that
there
was
an
ever-increasing
interest
in
strategic
growth
and
market
diversification,
particularly
among
large
firms.
Regional
mergers
also
made
headlines,
with
midsize
firms
combining
to
further
enhance
their
competitiveness.
These
trends
effectively
reshaped
the
legal
market,
setting
the
stage
for
robust
work
in
2025.

How
does
one
handle
all
of
the
ins
and
outs
of
a
major
merger
when
leading
a
law
firm?
How
can
a
law
firm
leader
ensure
that
a
tie-up
will
be
successful?

I
recently
had
the
pleasure
of
chatting
with

Kevin
McLaughlin,
managing
partner
of

UB
Greensfelder,
a
well-regarded
Am
Law
200
firm,
to
get
his
thoughts
on
the
matter.
Here
is
a
(lightly
edited
and
condensed)
write-up
of
our
lively
conversation
on
how
law
firms
can
tktk.

Staci
Zaretsky:
2024
was
another
wonderful
year
for
law
firm
mergers.
Case
in
point,
Greensfelder
Hemker
&
Gale
completed
a
major
merger
after
combining
with
Ulmer
&
Berne
to
become
UB
Greensfelder.
How
is
the
firm
adapting
to
its
new
role
as
a
super-regional
Am
Law
200
firm?

Kevin
McLaughlin
(KM):
It’s
been
gratifying
and
inspiring
to
watch
our
attorneys
engage
in
the
integration
process
so
enthusiastically.
Becoming
UB
Greensfelder
enabled
us
to
combine
two
strong,
growth-focused
firms
with
complementary
practice
strengths
and
geographic
footprints.
This
was
a
merger
of
equals,
driven
not
by
necessity
but
by
the
opportunity
to
achieve
more
together
than
we
could
separately.
With
nearly
300
lawyers
in
nine
offices,
including
a
Chicago
office
that
doubled
in
size,
we’ve
created
a
platform
that
enhances
our
ability
to
attract
top-tier
talent
and
compete
for
sophisticated,
high-stakes
legal
work.

The
merger
has
already
yielded
measurable
success.
We’re
seeing
better
talent
opportunities,
given
our
new
market
position
as
an
Am
Law
200-sized
firm,
enhanced
offerings,
and
culture.
We
are
also
finding
better
opportunities
to
pitch
for
and
win
complex
engagements
that
we
wouldn’t
have
landed
as
separate
firms
–
either
because
of
our
size
or
because
we
just
didn’t
offer
a
legal
service
that
the
matter
required.
Just
one
example
of
that
is
a
large
legacy
Greensfelder
healthcare
client
that
is
now
using
our
UB
Greensfelder
immigration
services,
which
Ulmer
brought
to
the
merger.
That’s
something
Greensfelder
couldn’t
offer
on
its
own
because
we
simply
didn’t
have
the
service.
We’ve
also
won
a
similar
immigration
engagement
from
a
major
educational
institution
that,
again,
we
wouldn’t
have
been
able
to
service
absent
this
merger.

Our
enhanced
depth
in
key
practice
areas,
such
as
litigation
and
M&A,
has
also
been
recognized
nationally,
including
being
named
to
BTI’s
Upmarket
Movers
list
for
litigation.

Ultimately,
this
merger
has
positioned
us
as
a
super-regional
powerhouse
that
maintains
a
collaborative,
client-focused
ethos
while
competing
on
a
larger
stage.

SZ:
It
takes
a
lot
of
work
to
make
a
midsize
law
firm
merger
work.
What
do
you
think
has
been
the
most
important
thing
your
firm
has
done
to
ensure
a
successful
integration?

KM:
Integration
is
where
many
mergers
succeed
or
fail,
and
we
were
determined
to
build
a
strong
foundation
for
success.
We
approached
integration
as
a
collaborative
effort,
not
simply
adopting
one
firm’s
systems
or
culture
but
blending
the
best
of
both.
Before
the
merger’s
effective
date,
we
prioritized
building
relationships
by
bringing
together
our
leadership
teams
and
partners
for
in-person
meetings.
This
enabled
us
to
establish
trust
and
shared
goals
early
on,
ensuring
that
we
could
really
hit
the
ground
running.

Technology
integration
was
another
major
focus.
Thanks
to
the
dedication
of
our
IT
team,
we
synchronized
our
email,
document
management,
and
accounting
systems
quickly.
This
ensured
smooth
operations
and
allowed
us
to
focus
on
clients
rather
than
logistics.

Policy
decisions
were
equally
deliberate.
For
example,
instead
of
adopting
one
legacy
firm’s
compensation
structure,
we
collaborated
to
create
a
new
system
that
reflects
the
values
and
goals
of
UB
Greensfelder.
These
efforts
have
paid
off,
helping
make
our
integration
a
success.

SZ:
From
finance
to
HR
to
technology
to
billing,
navigating
a
major
merger
like
this
can
be
quite
complicated.
But
what
about
the
people?
Has
your
firm’s
culture
been
impacted?

KM:
Our
firm’s
culture
has
been
strengthened
and
enriched
by
the
merger.
It’s
important
to
note
that
similar
cultures
and
values
brought
us
together
for
discussions
in
the
first
place,
so
we
were
always
optimistic
that
culture
would
not
be
a
huge
challenge
for
us.
That
said,
culture
is
always
a
concern
during
a
major
combination,
so
from
day
one,
we
approached
it
with
intentionality
and
care.
We
brought
our
partners
together
within
the
first
three
months
of
the
merger
to
build
interpersonal
connections,
ensuring
everyone
felt
part
of
the
same
team.
We
emphasized
collaboration,
respect,
and
shared
purpose,
with
each
person
checking
their
egos
at
the
door
to
work
toward
the
greater
good
of
the
firm.

These
efforts
have
paid
dividends.
Today,
we
see
attorneys
from
different
legacy
firms
working
together
seamlessly
to
deliver
exceptional
results
for
clients.
For
example,
since
the
merger,
we’ve
been
retained
by
a
Fortune
500
company
in
the
food
industry
that
brought
us
on
specifically
because
of
our
greater
breadth
and
depth.

Ultimately,
our
merger
has
brought
a
sense
of
energy
and
opportunity
to
the
firm.
Our
people
are
excited
about
what
we’re
building
together,
and
that
enthusiasm
is
palpable
in
everything
we
do.

SZ:
Everyone
has
high
hopes
for
what
their
firm
will
look
like
after
a
major
tie-up
like
this,
and
we
know
that
UB
Greensfelder’s
story
has
a
happy
ending.
What
advice
can
you
offer
for
others
who
are
hoping
to
model
your
firm’s
success?

KM:
My
advice
to
firms
considering
a
merger
is
to
approach
the
process
with
clarity,
intentionality,
and
a
shared
vision.
The
foundation
of
a
successful
merger
is
alignment
—
both
firms
need
to
share
similar
goals,
values,
and
strategic
priorities.
For
us,
it
was
about
creating
a
stronger
platform
to
serve
clients
and
attract
top
talent,
not
about
solving
financial
challenges
or
accommodating
cultural
mismatches.

Integration
is
equally
critical.
Build
relationships
early,
long
before
the
official
merger
date,
so
that
your
leaders
and
teams
can
establish
trust.
Plan
meticulously
for
operational
integration,
especially
in
areas
like
technology
and
policies.
For
example,
we
didn’t
take
the
easy
route
of
adopting
one
firm’s
systems
or
structures.
Instead,
we
collaborated
to
create
new,
best-practice
solutions
that
reflect
the
needs
of
our
combined
firm.

Lastly,
be
patient
but
purposeful.
Mergers
aren’t
an
endpoint
—
they’re
a
starting
point
for
future
growth.
Stay
focused
on
your
long-term
goals
and
allow
the
merger
to
be
a
stepping
stone
to
even
greater
achievements.

On
behalf
of
everyone
here
at
Above
the
Law,
we’d
like
to
thank
Kevin
McLaughlin
of
UB
Greensfelder
for
taking
the
time
to
help
answer
some
pressing
questions
on
how
law
firms
can
achieve
success
throughout
the
merger
process.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Back
in
November,
Damian
Williams,
the
first
Black
person
to
lead
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
announced
he’d
be
leaving
his
post
as
U.S.
Attorney.
Today,
he
announced
which
Biglaw
firm
had
retained
his
legal
talent.
And
Williams
is
back
to
where
it
all
began,
joining
Paul
Weiss,
where
he
started
his
career
as
an
associate.
“This
is
a
real
full-circle
moment
for
me,”
Williams
said
in
a
statement.
“It’s
an
honor
to
rejoin
the
firm
where
my
professional
journey
began.”
Of
course,
this
time
around,
he’ll
be
a
partner
at
Paul
Weiss.

During
his
time
at
S.D.N.Y.,
Williams
went
after
some
high-profile
folks
including
Senator
Bob
Menendez,
Ghislaine
Maxwell,
Sean
“P.
Diddy”
Combs,
New
York
City
Mayor
Eric
Adams,
former
New
York
City
Mayor
Rudy
Giuliani,
Sam
Bankman-Fried,
and
Archegos
Capital
Management
founder
Bill
Hwang.

As

noted
by
Bloomberg
Law,
the
litigation
department
Williams
joins
has
a
number
of
big-name
attorneys,
including
former
government
lawyers
like
former
Attorney
General
Loretta
Lynch
and
former
U.S.
Homeland
Security
Secretary
Jeh
Johnson.

Paul
Weiss
Chair
Brad
Karp
was
enthusiastic
about
the
firm’s
pick-up
saying,
“We
are
thrilled
to
welcome
Damian
back.”

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Let’s
face
it
—
no
one

likes
complaints.
Early
in
my
career,
they
felt
like
landmines:
customer
grievances,
regulatory
inquiries,
even
lawsuits.
My
gut
reaction
was
to
minimize
the
damage
and
move
on.

But
then
I
had
a
realization:
complaints
are
gold.
They’re
not
just
problems
to
fix
—
they’re
insights
waiting
to
be
uncovered.
Every
complaint
is
a
direct
line
to
what
your
customers
need,
what
your
product
lacks,
or
where
your
team
could
be
stronger.
Now,
when
complaints
land
in
my
inbox,
I
lean
in
with
curiosity:
What
can
this
teach
us?

Here’s
how
I’ve
learned
to
flip
complaints
into
a
competitive
advantage
—
and
how
you
can,
too.

Listen
To
The
Bigger
Problem

A
lawsuit
over
unclear
terms
of
service.
Angry
reviews
about
a
confusing
refund
process.
These
aren’t
just
fires
to
extinguish
—
they’re
clues
to
deeper
issues.
One
lawsuit
about
subscription
renewals
pushed
me
to
rethink
how
we
wrote
our
agreements.
We
stripped
out
legalese
and
replaced
it
with
plain,
human
language.
Complaints
dropped,
customer
satisfaction
soared,
and
we
built
a
foundation
of
trust
—
all
because
we
listened.

Recurring
complaints
often
reveal
bigger,
systemic
problems.
Addressing
those
root
causes
doesn’t
just
solve
the
immediate
issue;
it
makes
your
product
better
for

everyone.

Mine
Legal
Challenges
For
Innovation

It
might
sound
strange,
but
lawsuits
are
some
of
the
best
feedback
you’ll
ever
get.
They’re
hyper-detailed
insights
into
where
your
company
might
be
missing
the
mark.
A
privacy-related
inquiry
once
led
my
team
to
revamp
our
data
practices.
What
started
as
a
reactive
fix
turned
into
a
proactive
selling
point:
a
data-handling
feature
that
wowed
customers
and
exceeded
compliance
requirements.

Don’t
shy
away
from
legal
challenges
—
treat
them
as
blueprints
for
improvement.

Design
For
When
Things
Go
Wrong

Most
teams
focus
on
the
perfect
customer
journey:
everything
works,
and
the
customer
leaves
happy.
But
complaints
shine
a
light
on
what
happens
when
things
don’t
go
as
planned.

For
example,
a
spike
in
refund-related
complaints
had
us
completely
overhaul
our
process.
By
simplifying
the
terms
and
communicating
them
more
clearly,
we
turned
a
source
of
frustration
into
a
moment
of
trust.
Focusing
on
these
“unhappy
paths”
prevents
issues
before
they
snowball
—
and
builds
loyalty
in
the
process.

Complaints
Are
Invitations
To
Build
Trust

Here’s
the
magic:
when
you
respond
to
complaints
with
real,
meaningful
changes,
customers
notice.
They
don’t
just
see
a
problem
fixed
—
they
see
a
company
that
listens.
After
customers
raised
concerns
about
our
data
privacy,
we
launched
new
features
that
gave
them
more
control.
The
result?
Not
just
compliance,
but
a
huge
boost
in
customer
confidence.

Handled
right,
complaints
aren’t
risks
—
they’re
trust-builders.

The
Takeaway

Complaints
are
gifts,
not
burdens.
They’re
a
direct
line
to
what
your
customers
want,
and
they’re
packed
with
opportunities
to
improve,
innovate,
and
differentiate
your
brand.

For
more
strategies
on
turning
challenges
into
opportunities,
check
out
my
book,
“Product
Counsel:
Advise,
Innovate,
and
Inspire.”
It’s
filled
with
actionable
insights
and
real-world
examples
to
help
you
transform
complaints
into
competitive
advantages.

How
have
you
turned
complaints
into
wins?
Let’s
swap
stories
—
I’d
love
to
hear
yours.

---

Olga
V.
Mack


is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and  Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:


Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on



LinkedIn


and
Twitter
@olgavmack.